This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Please do not use this article to run an experiment on infoboxes, which are still being discussed on WikiProject Classical Music. As far as I am concerned it gives no useful information on the article, particularly since the number of movements is a useless statistic. Instead of editing merely about infoboxes, I would encourage folks rather to improve other articles on cantatas by adding sourced information. BWV 39 is mostly copy-pasted, and surely a copy-vio, from CD sleeve notes. When the title of the article already contains the BWV number, why waste a separate line? The image was already in the article. It was carefully selected from a large number of sheets and uploaded by me, so the argument about the beauty of the image is not convincing, since it was already in the article. Please improve other articles on cantatas (BWV 140 and BWV 78 are other examples), instead of adding this useless and aesthetically unappealing non-information. All you'll do is frighten away content contributors. Certainly no useful infobox could be written on for example Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, so why bother? Leave the discussion to WikiProject Classical Music, if it has to be continued. Mathsci (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Some editors (even “content editors”) get frightened off if they are told what to do, or are accused of “running ghastly experiments”. Thanks for mentioning the discussion, but I’m not sure that anyone will want to go there, as it seems you have already decided what’s going to happen. p.s. was the info box as “ugly” before the image was added? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't belong here (nor do BWV 39, 140, 78, as correct as the comment are), but I was told MUCH worse than running ghastly experiments (for example that I should be ashamed of my poor company), - that will not frighten me off ;) - Please go to the discussion which was dormant for a week. We should talk there, not here. - The image was in the article all the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. As I wrote there, the DFG viewer on the Bach Digital Archive in Leipzig gives much higher resolution images. MathsciGerdfa! (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Fair comment. And a polite invitation, Gerda, thank you. (I'm sure you keep very good coompany, by the way!) Those editors who have produced/improved a wide range of similar articles will probably be the ones who know best, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
